CIT v. Hotel Savera

239 ITR 795High Court1999#888 most cited

What is CIT v. Hotel Savera authority for?

When an assessee has sufficient interest-free own funds available to make interest-free advances or investments, it is presumed that such advances or investments are made from these interest-free funds, thereby preventing the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii).

119

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hotel Savera · Hotel Savera · Section 36(1)(iii) · disallowance of interest expenditure · interest-free advances · own funds · mixed fund theory · commercial expediency · presumption of funds utilization · sufficiency of interest-free funds

Also reported as

102 Taxmann 247

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 143(3)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 127Section 132Section 132A

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(ii)section 36(1)(iii)interest free advancessection 28(iv)weighted deductioncommercial expediencysection 35(2ab)business connectiondisallowance of interest expenditureicdssection 9(1)(vii)section 36(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Hotel Savera

Prabhakar Mishra, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-44, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2255/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2255/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Prabhakar Mishra -Vs- Dcit, Circle-44, Kolkata [Pan: Aezpm 7452 B ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Lakra, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144

…the case of CIT vs Gopalakrishna Muralidhar reported in 47 ITR 469 (AP) ; Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Woolcombers of India Ltd vs CIT reported in 134 ITR 219 (Cal) ; Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Hotel Savera reported in 239 ITR 795 (Mad) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 138 ITR 45 (Guj), among others. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the said judicial precedents, we direct the ld AO to delete the disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act in the sum of Rs 26,51,363/- . Accordingly, the Ground…

Tupelo Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 25(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2427/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2014-15 Tupelo Construction Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 296, Forest Lane, Circle 25(2), Neb Sarai, New Delhi. Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110066 (Pan: Aaect3335J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Lalit Mohan, Advocate Department By : Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…n fact general reserves, surpluses and other funds were not available. The Court here also notices that several decisions were relied upon by the ITAT (CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340/178 Taxman 135 (Bom.), CIT v. Hotel Savera [1999] 239 ITR 795/102 Taxman 247 (Mad), CIT v. Tin Box Co. [2003] 260 ITR 637/[2004] 135 Taxman 145 (Delhi)) in support of the conclusion that when the assessee is 9 Assessment year 2014-15 possessed of mixed funds which include its own funds in sufficient quantity, a presumption that its own funds were utilized for the advances is to be drawn. 11. The next aspec…

ACIT Circle 1, Namakkal vs. Pkpn Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., Namakkal

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2799/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mrs.S.Vijayaprabha, JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.Saroj Kumar Parida,Advocate
Section 143(3)

…c facts, we are of the view that the order of CIT(Appeals) following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd., referred to supra, as also the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hotel Savera ( 239 ITR 795 (Mad.) ) is on the right footing and does not call for any interference. Both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos.2797/Chny/2017 & 2799/Chny/2017 for assessment years 2008-09 & 2011-12 stand dismissed. 7. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing…

ACIT Circle 1, Namakkal vs. Pkpn Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., Namakkal

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2798/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mrs.S.Vijayaprabha, JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.Saroj Kumar Parida,Advocate
Section 143(3)

…c facts, we are of the view that the order of CIT(Appeals) following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd., referred to supra, as also the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hotel Savera ( 239 ITR 795 (Mad.) ) is on the right footing and does not call for any interference. Both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos.2797/Chny/2017 & 2799/Chny/2017 for assessment years 2008-09 & 2011-12 stand dismissed. 7. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing…

ACIT Circle 1, Namakkal vs. Pkpn Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd., Namakkal

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2797/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mrs.S.Vijayaprabha, JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.Saroj Kumar Parida,Advocate
Section 143(3)

…c facts, we are of the view that the order of CIT(Appeals) following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd., referred to supra, as also the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hotel Savera ( 239 ITR 795 (Mad.) ) is on the right footing and does not call for any interference. Both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos.2797/Chny/2017 & 2799/Chny/2017 for assessment years 2008-09 & 2011-12 stand dismissed. 7. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-11, New Delhi

In the result ground No

ITA 6990/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…274 ITR 370 (All)  CIT v. United Collieries Ltd. : 49 Taxman 227 (Cal)  CIT v. Enamour Investment Ltd.: 72 Taxman 370 (Cal)  CIT v. Caroline Investment Ltd.: 87 Taxman 238 (Cal)  CIT v. Kanoria Investment (P) Ltd.: 232 ITR 7 (Cal)  CIT vs. Hotel Savera: 239 ITR 795 (Mad)  Smt. Chanchal Katyal v. CIT: 298 ITR 182 (All.)  CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.: 313 ITR 340 (Bom) Reliance is also placed on the following cases, wherein, the Courts have repeatedly held that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed under section 14A of the Act, where the assessee had sufficient surplus funds and there was i…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…274 ITR 370 (All) • CIT v. United Collieries Ltd. : 49 Taxman 227 (Cal) • CIT v. Enamour Investment Ltd.: 72 Taxman 370 (Cal) • CIT v. Caroline Investment Ltd.: 87 Taxman 238 (Cal) • CIT v. Kanoria Investment (P) Ltd.: 232 ITR 7 (Cal) • CIT vs. Hotel Savera: 239 ITR 795 (Mad) • Smt. Chanchal Katyal v. CIT: 298 ITR 182 (All.) • CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.: 313 ITR 340 (Bom) Reliance is also placed on the following cases, wherein, the Courts have repeatedly held that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed under section 14A of the Act, where the assessee had sufficient surplus funds and there was n…

Smt. Meena Devi, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2995/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2995/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Meena Devi, C/O Shri S. Sridhar, The Income Tax Officer, Sh. A.S. Sriraman, Advocates, V. Non Corporate Ward 5(3), New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Chennai 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aafpd 0978 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Sahadevan, JCIT
Section 68

…2 I.T.A. No.2995/Chny/16 3. Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the advance was given to related parties from interest-free funds. The Ld.counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Hotel Savera (1999) 239 ITR 795. The Ld.counsel submitted that since more than ₹3 Crores were available with the assessee as interest-free funds, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. Referring to the second issue with regard to addition of ₹4,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the Ld.cou…

Til Healthcare Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corpore Ward 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2416/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2416/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs The Acit, M/S. Til Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Ward – 3(1), Jhaver Centre, Raja Annamalai Building, Chennai. No.72, Marshalls Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aabct0985H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : 08.02.2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: 08.02.2018
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)

…of interest expenditure cannot be made just because the assessee had extended interest free loan aggregating to Rs.87,02,892/-. Reliance was placed in the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case CIT vs. Hotel Savera reported in 239 ITR 795 wherein it was held “No part of the interest on borrowings could be disallowed on the ground that part of the money borrowed was advanced to a third party free of interest when there was sufficient credit balance in the partners’ accounts and there was no evidence that the amounts were advanced out of the borrowed amounts” The Ld.AR also placed…

M/S. Liberty Marketers, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 86/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)(iii)

…ceeded interest bearing funds in the relevant year was not controverted by the authorities below. 6.1 The Ld. AR relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court to contravene the disallowance: 1) S.A. Builders vs. CIT (288 ITR 1) (SC) 2) CIT vs. Hotel Savera (239 ITR 795) (Mad.) 3) Chanchal Katyal vs. CIT (298 ITR 182) (All) 4) CIT vs. Prem heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (285 ITR 554) (All) 5) ONGC vs. DCIT (262 ITR 648) (Uttaranchal) 6) CIT vs. Raghuvir Sythetics Ltd. (36 Taxman.com 275) (Guj) 7) CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (178 Taxman 135) (Bom) I.T.A. Nos. 409/C/2014 & 85&86/Coch/2016 Therefore…

M/S. Liberty Marketers, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 85/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)(iii)

…ceeded interest bearing funds in the relevant year was not controverted by the authorities below. 6.1 The Ld. AR relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court to contravene the disallowance: 1) S.A. Builders vs. CIT (288 ITR 1) (SC) 2) CIT vs. Hotel Savera (239 ITR 795) (Mad.) 3) Chanchal Katyal vs. CIT (298 ITR 182) (All) 4) CIT vs. Prem heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (285 ITR 554) (All) 5) ONGC vs. DCIT (262 ITR 648) (Uttaranchal) 6) CIT vs. Raghuvir Sythetics Ltd. (36 Taxman.com 275) (Guj) 7) CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (178 Taxman 135) (Bom) I.T.A. Nos. 409/C/2014 & 85&86/Coch/2016 Therefore…

M/S.Liberty Marketers, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 409/COCH/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)(iii)

…ceeded interest bearing funds in the relevant year was not controverted by the authorities below. 6.1 The Ld. AR relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court to contravene the disallowance: 1) S.A. Builders vs. CIT (288 ITR 1) (SC) 2) CIT vs. Hotel Savera (239 ITR 795) (Mad.) 3) Chanchal Katyal vs. CIT (298 ITR 182) (All) 4) CIT vs. Prem heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (285 ITR 554) (All) 5) ONGC vs. DCIT (262 ITR 648) (Uttaranchal) 6) CIT vs. Raghuvir Sythetics Ltd. (36 Taxman.com 275) (Guj) 7) CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (178 Taxman 135) (Bom) I.T.A. Nos. 409/C/2014 & 85&86/Coch/2016 Therefore…

Inidra Industries, Ranipet vs. ACIT Circle 1, Vellore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2030/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Nrs Ganesan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2030/Chny/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Indira Industries -Vs- Acit, Circle-I, Vellore [Pan: Aaafi 2440 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundararaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…e advance of Rs 3,99,51,000/- from its group concern M/s KGP Solar Projects Private Limited, which has to be construed as own funds available with the assessee as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Hotel Savera reported in 239 ITR 795 (Mad) and by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom). 7 Indira Industries A.Yr. 2013-14 6.3. We hold that the bank charges, bank guarantee charges, LC charges and valuation charges paid in the sum of Rs 21,46,275/- has got nothing to do with the amounts overdrawn by one of the par…

Rocky Marketing (Chennai) Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. Dcitcentral Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1707/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Mustafa, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)

…e use of the building and land belonging to Rocky Agencies since April 2011 much prior to the sanctioning of the limits by Citi Bank on 13/02/2012 (Page 5 of PB). Thus there is no nexus between the borrowal and alleged diversion of funds - CIT Vs Hotel Savera 239 ITR 795 (Mad). II. Although the assessee hypothecated its stock and book debts, personal guarantee of the Directors to Citi Bank for the working capital limits sanctioned to the Assessee was primarily based on security of immovable property after it was duly valued by a valuer (Page 70 of PB). III. The land and Godown owned by Rocky Agencies was given…

K.Deva Kumari, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 789/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. B. Sahadevan, IRS, JCIT

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.789/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2010-2011. Smt. K. Deva Kumari, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of No.48, Venkata Maistry Street, Income Tax, Mannady, Business Circle VIII, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [PAN AAGPD 0150L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. B. Sahadevan, IRS, JCIT. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by सुनवाई…

Saurabh Agrotech (P) Ltd., Alwar vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 779/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)
Section 14ASection 80

…that investment would be out of interest free funds generated or available with the company, if the interest free funds are sufficient to meet the investment, then no disallowance could be made. Similar view has been expressed in case of CIT vs. Hotel Savera, 239 ITR 795 (Mad.) and in case or Visen Industries Ltd. 136 ITD 309 (Mum.)(TM). Following these decisions and in view of the reasoning given by ld. CIT(A) which is reproduced somewhere above in this order, we see no reason to interfere with the finding of ld. CIT()A). It is ITA No. 779/JP/16 M/s Saurabh Agrotech (P) Ltd, Alwar Vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Alwar a…

E-City Investments & Holdings Comapny P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for the Asst

ITA 1153/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri. Suman Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…rder dated 03/02/2016 holding as under:- “2.8. For making a disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act essentially, there has to be a finding that the borrowed money were utilized for non-business purposes. As was held in CIT vs Hotel Savera 148 CTR (Mad.) 585 ; 239 ITR 795 (Mad.). In this context, the fact that the assessee had ample funds or resources at his disposal and need not have borrowed funds is not a relevant matter for consideration. All that is germane is whether the borrowing was, or was not, for the purposes of business. In City Motor Service Ltd. vs CIT (1966) 61 ITR 426 (Mad. ) The assessee used the…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…free funds have been utilized for making investments during the year. He relied upon the following decisions: i. East India Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd: v. CIT: 224 ITR 627 (SC), ii. Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. CIT: 134 ITR 219 (Cal) iii. CIT vs. Hotel Savera: 239 ITR 795 (Mad) iv. CIT v Radico Khitan Ltd : 274 ITR 354 (All) v. CIT v Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd : 274 ITR 370 (All) vi. CIT v. United Collieries Ltd. : 49 Taxman 227 (Cal) vii. CIT v. Enamour Investment Ltd.: 72 Taxman 370 (Cal) viii. CIT v. Caroline Investment Ltd.: 87 Taxman 238 (Cal) ix. CIT v. Kanoria Investment (P) Ltd.: 232 ITR 7 (Cal) x. Tata Ferti…

Odyssey Capital P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part whereas appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 4179/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

…rlier year, where no disallowance of interest was made in the earlier year, for the same amount the Department cannot make disallowance during the current year. 15. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Hotel Savera (239 ITR 795) and also on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram (114 ITR 645). 7 M/s. Odyssey Capital Pvt. Ltd. 16. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Virendra R. Gandhi (in Tax Appeal No. 124 of 2005), wherein the Court observed as under :- We have heard learned adv…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Odyseey Capital P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part whereas appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 3845/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

…rlier year, where no disallowance of interest was made in the earlier year, for the same amount the Department cannot make disallowance during the current year. 15. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Hotel Savera (239 ITR 795) and also on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram (114 ITR 645). 7 M/s. Odyssey Capital Pvt. Ltd. 16. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Virendra R. Gandhi (in Tax Appeal No. 124 of 2005), wherein the Court observed as under :- We have heard learned adv…